Passed over by voters, Terry Goddard remains a visionary

by Robert Robb, columnist - Nov. 6, 2010 06:56 PMThe Arizona Republic

From the political notebook:

- Terry Goddard is only 63. And the Democratic bench - promising lower-level officials with potential to run for big offices - is closer to non-existent than weak. So, I don't want to say that Goddard's political career is necessarily over.

However, Democrats almost universally believe, after three unsuccessful runs for governor, that Goddard is a lousy campaigner. They would turn to him again only with great reluctance.

Today, it is not much remembered what a transforming political figure Goddard was in the 1980s. He led the fight for a district system for Phoenix and then won an upstart campaign to be the first mayor under it. In doing so, he ran against the disproportionate influence the Phoenix business community had in those days.

Goddard began the diffusion of political power that characterizes Phoenix and the state today. He actually had more lasting influence on Arizona's political future than those most often cited as the dominant figures of that period: Bruce Babbitt, Burton Barr and Alfredo Gutierrez.

If Goddard had played it safe as mayor, he undoubtedly would have been elected governor in 1990.

Goddard, however, forcefully advocated for a series of failed tax-increase proposals to build a downtown baseball stadium, to transform and restore the Salt River throughout the county, and to establish a countywide transit system.

In much of this, he was just premature. A downtown baseball stadium was eventually built. A countywide transit tax was approved. Piecemeal improvements of the Salt River are occurring. In the case of the transit system and Salt River improvements, what Goddard advocated in the 1980s was actually much better than what county residents ultimately got.

Also on the ballot in 1990 was a sales-tax increase for education, which Goddard also supported. It and he were initially quite popular. As the campaign progressed, both rapidly lost altitude.

The record enabled Fife Symington to develop a narrative of Goddard as a tax-hiker. Voters ultimately rejected both the education tax and Goddard.

Goddard never struck me as the same politically after that. He seemed more detached, less engaged.

It showed this election. The 1980s Goddard might very well have proposed a specific $2 billion tax increase to avoid the deep budget cuts the state otherwise faces. That would have been politically disastrous. But not doing so left him with not much to say.

I have frequently disagreed with Goddard, and early in his career, I was one of those he steamrolled over on his way to transforming Arizona politics.

Nevertheless, Goddard has always been, and remains, one of the Arizona political leaders I most admire and respect, for his willingness to take political risks for what he believes in. He's always been in politics for the right reasons.

- I don't think state Senate Republicans know what they have done in electing Russell Pearce as president.

Republicans are going to have to do highly unpopular things to balance the state budget. That requires a leader who understands the issues, is deft at problem-solving and can communicate tough things to people who are going to be deeply disappointed.

Pearce has none of those skills.

Despite a long tenure as appropriations chairman in both the House and Senate, Pearce's understanding of state government programs is pretty shallow. The art of compromise isn't his forte, to put it mildly. And he dismisses those who disagree with him as unpatriotic or socialist.

As Senate president, he will compete with Gov. Jan Brewer as the face of the Republican Party and completely eclipse House Speaker Kirk Adams, who does have a solid understanding of state government and communicates reasonably and sympathetically about the need to do tough things.

Pearce is not exactly the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down.

- According to Arizona liberals, the only election results that matter are the defeat of Propositions 301 and 302, which would have transferred funds set aside for land conservation and early-childhood development programs to the state's general fund and the control of the Legislature.

Forget the passage of conservative ballot propositions to challenge "Obamacare," to prohibit racial preferences and require secret ballots in union elections. Forget the near sweep by conservative Republicans of races for Congress, state offices and the Legislature. None of that reflects the true political will of Arizona voters.

Instead, according to Arizona liberals, the defeat of Props. 301 and 302 proves that, in their heart of hearts, Arizona voters are really lefties just like them.

Now both sides of the partisan and ideological divide tend to view themselves as the center of the political spectrum and interpret election results through that prism.

But Arizona liberals seeing a validation of their views in these election results requires a remarkable reserve of obtuseness.